Here is a little primer nutshell-type-thing on circumstantial evidence. Cat-people, listen up. It’s important to memorize this definition. Because where crime is concerned, the kittehs aren’t talking.
And talk about synchronicity — our friend Andrea has just put up a very interesting case study of circumstantial evidence on her blog. Check it out. You can see the circumstantial-evidence analysis at work in the field here.
We had a circumstantial-evidence incident here, too, a while back. It even involved a claw sheath, just like over at Andrea’s. Here’s the documentary evidence:
Take a look here, for the full case write-up.
Oh yes. The definition of circumstantial evidence? Here it is: When looking at two competing explanations, the one that makes the most sense is admissible to show culpability. Or, to put it another way: If the evidence plus explanation is consistent with the defendant’s innocence, not guilt, via a far more reasonable conclusion exonerating him, then the evidence is barred and the guilty argument forbidden as being too prejudicial.
In both Andrea’s and our case illustrated above, the explanation of guilt is far more reasonable than that of innocence. So the claw sheaths come into evidence, the jury gets to hear the argument, and conviction must inevitably follow.
Our case settled with a plea bargain. It was open and shut, given there was only one entity in the house at the time with the DNA profile depicted above. Andrea’s case — and ours yesterday, with the purloined purée — is more interesting because there are two suspects.
The reporters are waiting. We must announce the verdicts. Guilty as charged, on all counts.